subject:"systemd effectively mandatory now due to GNOME"

On Thu, Oct 24, 2013 at 02:09:46AM +0200, Adam Borowski wrote:
 just recall the most epic flamewar in Debian's history),

Peh it wasn't *that* epic. I recall some truly awful ones in around 2006
to which the systemd ones pale in comparison. (Do not interpret this as
a challenge.)


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20131024080509.ga28...@bryant.redmars.org

Re: systemd effectively mandatory now due to GNOME

On Thu, Oct 24, 2013 at 02:09:46AM +0200, Adam Borowski wrote:
  And I for one heavily use vservers

It's a professional shame of mine that we are still trying to get rid of
some old vserver instances at $WORK. I am astonished to see that you are
still using them. I didn't think they'd rebased onto anything more
recent than 2.6.20, I now see (with some dread) that you can get those
patches for 3.x series kernels.

However, it does mean I can file your systemd experience (singular) in
the I tried systemd in conjunction with $INSANESHIT and something
broke! bucket. Rube Goldberg indeed…


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20131024081123.gb28...@bryant.redmars.org

Re: let's split the systemd binary package [Was, Re: systemd effectively mandatory now due to GNOME]

On Wed, Oct 23, 2013 at 06:27:51PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
 So first of all, how hard it is to split is irrelevant.  This is work
 that must be done, and Debian should not accept excuses for it not
 being done.

I have a lot of respect for the Debian systemd maintainers and I think
it should be their call as to whether this split must be done or not,
and how to do it if so.


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20131024085459.gc28...@bryant.redmars.org

Re: let's split the systemd binary package [Was, Re: systemd effectively mandatory now due to GNOME]

2013-10-24 Thread Thibaut Paumard

Le 24/10/2013 10:54, Jonathan Dowland a écrit :
 On Wed, Oct 23, 2013 at 06:27:51PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
 So first of all, how hard it is to split is irrelevant.  This is work
 that must be done, and Debian should not accept excuses for it not
 being done.
 
 I have a lot of respect for the Debian systemd maintainers and I think
 it should be their call as to whether this split must be done or not,
 and how to do it if so.
 
 

Hi,

The split has already been done, hasn't it?  Merely installing the
systemd package does not make systemd the active init system on the
machine. You need to do it yourself or install the systemd-sysv package
for that to happen.

So systemd may very well be recommended on the platforms on which it
works. It's not obvious how it could be an actual mandatory dependency
on some architecture but not on some other, though. The fact that GNOME
works without it on some architectures points in the direction of a
recommendation rather that dependency.

Kind regards, Thibaut.




signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: systemd effectively mandatory now due to GNOME

2013-10-24 Thread Adam Borowski

On Thu, Oct 24, 2013 at 09:11:30AM +0100, Jonathan Dowland wrote:
 On Thu, Oct 24, 2013 at 02:09:46AM +0200, Adam Borowski wrote:
   And I for one heavily use vservers
 
 It's a professional shame of mine that we are still trying to get rid of
 some old vserver instances at $WORK.

lxc is still nowhere close to vserver (or openvz) functionality.  It lacks
even basics like vserver enter (you can't access a container more than
once other than via ssh or similar), not to speak about holding hostile
root.  vserver probably is too heavily in maintenance mode to pretend to
satisfy this anymore, but not catching all intentional attackers doesn't
mean not stopping unintentional breakage -- or even intentional but
not sophisticated enough intruders.

And xen and kvm are so inefficient memory wise it's not funny.  With
vserver, an empty container costs you only as much as the actual processes
need, while being able to get required memory immediately; with xen/kvm you
need to provision it with a large piece of slack so it can allocate things
before the baloon driver notices it must request more.  Multiply the slack
by the number of virtual machines and you end up with most of your memory
doing nothing.  Typical good practices with vserver include keeping every
service in a container on its own...

 I didn't think they'd rebased onto anything more recent than 2.6.20, I now
 see (with some dread) that you can get those patches for 3.x series kernels.

As every new major release adds more syscalls and refactoring to handle,
there's usually some slight lag: 3.10 kernels got ported only as of 3.10.9
(last update: 3.10.15) and 3.11 is not yet there.  Claiming it's stuck at a
six and a half years old kernel, though, suggests your information might be
a bit stale.

 However, it does mean I can file your systemd experience (singular) in
 the I tried systemd in conjunction with $INSANESHIT and something
 broke! bucket. Rube Goldberg indeed…

Debian's infrastructure relies pretty heavily on chroot, and even that
would require Rube Goldberg steps to have daemons talk between the host
and guest.  Needing this in the first place is wrong, as the whole point
of chroots/lxc/vserver/openvz/BSD jails/... is separation.

-- 
ᛊᚨᚾᛁᛏᚣ᛫ᛁᛊ᛫ᚠᛟᚱ᛫ᚦᛖ᛫ᚹᛖᚨᚲ


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20131024095931.ga13...@angband.pl

Re: let's split the systemd binary package [Was, Re: systemd effectively mandatory now due to GNOME]

2013-10-24 Thread Tollef Fog Heen

]] Thibaut Paumard 

 The split has already been done, hasn't it?  Merely installing the
 systemd package does not make systemd the active init system on the
 machine. You need to do it yourself or install the systemd-sysv package
 for that to happen.

No, that's not a split.  That's a set of optional symlinks you can
install if you want to use systemd without reconfiguring your boot
loader.  The split Steve is asking for is moving logind out of systemd.

-- 
Tollef Fog Heen
UNIX is user friendly, it's just picky about who its friends are


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/877gd3ynv7@qurzaw.varnish-software.com

Re: systemd effectively mandatory now due to GNOME

2013-10-24 Thread Dmitrijs Ledkovs

On 24 October 2013 10:59, Adam Borowski kilob...@angband.pl wrote:
 On Thu, Oct 24, 2013 at 09:11:30AM +0100, Jonathan Dowland wrote:
 On Thu, Oct 24, 2013 at 02:09:46AM +0200, Adam Borowski wrote:
   And I for one heavily use vservers

 It's a professional shame of mine that we are still trying to get rid of
 some old vserver instances at $WORK.

 lxc is still nowhere close to vserver (or openvz) functionality.  It lacks
 even basics like vserver enter (you can't access a container more than
 once other than via ssh or similar), not to speak about holding hostile
 root.  vserver probably is too heavily in maintenance mode to pretend to
 satisfy this anymore, but not catching all intentional attackers doesn't
 mean not stopping unintentional breakage -- or even intentional but
 not sophisticated enough intruders.


http://linux.die.net/man/1/lxc-attach

$ sudo lxc-attach --name mycontainer -- login

if you wish to gain full login prompt. It has been around at least
since 2012. And you can have multiple ones

What do you mean by holding hostile root. ?

Regards,

Dmitrijs.


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: 
http://lists.debian.org/CANBHLUiYf+GJ=e-OmXiRNA+nfvuw1vgGj=cghlb7qukfwav...@mail.gmail.com

Re: systemd effectively mandatory now due to GNOME

On Thu, 2013-10-24 at 11:46 +1100, Brian May wrote:
 On 24 October 2013 11:09, Adam Borowski kilob...@angband.pl wrote:
 * it breaks other users of cgroups.  I have not tested this
 personally
 
 (mostly because of the above point), but if I understand it
 right, it takes
 over the whole cgroups system, requiring anything that runs on
 the same
 kernel instance to beg it via dbus to perform required
 actions.
 
 
 I have heard this said before, would like to have some official
 confirmation if this is actually the case or not. cgroups are
 currently hierarchical,

Sort of.

 I would have thought this would mean, at least in theory, different
 programs could be responsible for different parts of the hierarchy.

Yes, but there isn't a protocol for delegating that responsibility.

 If it is true, it is the thing we need to be prepared for, and so far
 I haven't seen any official information.
 
 
 This might also be relevant
 here: 
 http://www.linux.com/news/featured-blogs/200-libby-clark/733595-all-about-the-linux-kernel-cgroups-redesign

This change is still under discussion.

Ben.

-- 
Ben Hutchings
Teamwork is essential - it allows you to blame someone else.


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: 
http://lists.debian.org/1382610937.6315.65.ca...@deadeye.wl.decadent.org.uk

Re: systemd effectively mandatory now due to GNOME

On Thu, 2013-10-24 at 11:59 +0200, Adam Borowski wrote:
 On Thu, Oct 24, 2013 at 09:11:30AM +0100, Jonathan Dowland wrote:
  On Thu, Oct 24, 2013 at 02:09:46AM +0200, Adam Borowski wrote:
And I for one heavily use vservers
  
  It's a professional shame of mine that we are still trying to get rid of
  some old vserver instances at $WORK.
 
 lxc is still nowhere close to vserver (or openvz) functionality.
[...]

I'm not sure whether that's still true, but anyway: OpenVZ is in
mainline Linux now.  You'll need to wait for Linux 3.12 in Debian, as we
can't enable CONFIG_USER_NS before then, and I don't know whether the
vzctl package is ready to work with mainline kernels.

Ben.

-- 
Ben Hutchings
Teamwork is essential - it allows you to blame someone else.


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: 
http://lists.debian.org/1382611609.6315.72.ca...@deadeye.wl.decadent.org.uk

Re: systemd effectively mandatory now due to GNOME

2013-10-24 Thread Adam Borowski

On Thu, Oct 24, 2013 at 11:46:49AM +0100, Ben Hutchings wrote:
  lxc is still nowhere close to vserver (or openvz) functionality.

 OpenVZ is in mainline Linux now.  You'll need to wait for Linux 3.12 in
 Debian, as we can't enable CONFIG_USER_NS before then, and I don't know
 whether the vzctl package is ready to work with mainline kernels.

Sounds interesting.

It's been a while since I compared it with vserver, but as far as I know,
they're equivalent with just a different set of quirks.

-- 
ᛊᚨᚾᛁᛏᚣ᛫ᛁᛊ᛫ᚠᛟᚱ᛫ᚦᛖ᛫ᚹᛖᚨᚲ


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20131024114743.ga15...@angband.pl

Re: systemd effectively mandatory now due to GNOME

2013-10-24 Thread Philipp Kern


On 2013-10-23 22:22, Brian May wrote:

This looks like the dependency is kernel/platform dependant:

http://packages.debian.org/sid/gnome-settings-daemon [1] has:

dep: systemd [not hppa, hurd-i386, kfreebsd-amd64, kfreebsd-i386,
m68k, powerpcspe, sh4, sparc64]

So doesn't break Gnome where systemd is not supported.


GNOME is also likely not being tested on these other platforms.

Kind regards
Philipp Kern


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/72592a5e9a0d3dfc675af7780e02a...@hub.kern.lc

Re: systemd effectively mandatory now due to GNOME

2013-10-24 Thread Marco d'Itri

On Oct 24, Dmitrijs Ledkovs x...@debian.org wrote:

 What do you mean by holding hostile root. ?
http://blog.bofh.it/debian/id_413

The missing parts (UID virtualization IIRC) are upstream now, and should 
be ready for jessie.

Until then if you do not trust containers then the best choice is to
use openvz with Parallel's 2.6.32 kernel.

-- 
ciao,
Marco


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: Please assume good faith (was Re: systemd effectively mandatory now due to GNOME)

2013-10-24 Thread Norbert Preining

On Do, 24 Okt 2013, Charles Plessy wrote:
 at this point, I would like to point at a very important part of the
 revised code of conduct that Wouter is proposing: Assume good faith.

On Do, 24 Okt 2013, Adam Borowski wrote:
 My apologies, I overreacted.


Oh holy s...sunshine (I have to be careful, otherwise I will be ostracised
again) ... now that useless political correctness is taking
over again.

Clear critic with real background - many of us have the same experience -
(how many times did my system break in the last years due to GNome?)
are silence by
Code of Conduct

Now, let me know - is this the new way of silencing critical voices?

This is what is happening in many policitcal and social landscape -
say that it is not correct and put it under the carpet.

Brave New World

Norbert


PREINING, Norbert   http://www.preining.info
JAIST, Japan TeX Live  Debian Developer
DSA: 0x09C5B094   fp: 14DF 2E6C 0307 BE6D AD76  A9C0 D2BF 4AA3 09C5 B094



-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20131024140042.ge31...@gamma.logic.tuwien.ac.at

Re: OpenVZ (was: systemd effectively mandatory now due to GNOME)

2013-10-24 Thread Thomas Goirand

On 10/24/2013 06:46 PM, Ben Hutchings wrote:
 On Thu, 2013-10-24 at 11:59 +0200, Adam Borowski wrote:
 On Thu, Oct 24, 2013 at 09:11:30AM +0100, Jonathan Dowland wrote:
 On Thu, Oct 24, 2013 at 02:09:46AM +0200, Adam Borowski wrote:
  And I for one heavily use vservers

 It's a professional shame of mine that we are still trying to get rid of
 some old vserver instances at $WORK.

 lxc is still nowhere close to vserver (or openvz) functionality.
 [...]
 
 I'm not sure whether that's still true, but anyway: OpenVZ is in
 mainline Linux now.

Oh, I'm surprised! I thought it would never get in, since we had LXC.
Thanks for sharing this info. How much of it is in? All of it? Or just a
subset?

 You'll need to wait for Linux 3.12 in Debian, as we
 can't enable CONFIG_USER_NS before then

What's that for?

Thomas


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/52692bcc.1080...@debian.org

Re: Please assume good faith (was Re: systemd effectively mandatory now due to GNOME)

2013-10-24 Thread Stefano Zacchiroli

On Thu, Oct 24, 2013 at 11:00:42PM +0900, Norbert Preining wrote:
 On Do, 24 Okt 2013, Adam Borowski wrote:
  My apologies, I overreacted.

 Clear critic with real background - many of us have the same experience -
 (how many times did my system break in the last years due to GNome?)
 are silence by
   Code of Conduct
 
 Now, let me know - is this the new way of silencing critical voices?

No.  But it is a gigantic leap forward in the culture of our community.

Thanks Adam!
-- 
Stefano Zacchiroli  . . . . . . .  z...@upsilon.cc . . . . o . . . o . o
Maître de conférences . . . . . http://upsilon.cc/zack . . . o . . . o o
Former Debian Project Leader  . . @zack on identi.ca . . o o o . . . o .
« the first rule of tautology club is the first rule of tautology club »


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: systemd effectively mandatory now due to GNOME

2013-10-24 Thread Steve McIntyre

Adrian wrote:

Well, Debian is aiming for full systemd integration with Jessie, so
there is that.

Ummm, no. You and some others might be, but not Debian as a whole
AFAICS.

-- 
Steve McIntyre, Cambridge, UK.st...@einval.com
Support the Campaign for Audiovisual Free Expression: http://www.eff.org/cafe/


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/e1vzmtw-0006yq...@mail.einval.com

Re: systemd effectively mandatory now due to GNOME

On Thu, 2013-10-24 at 15:40 +0200, Marco d'Itri wrote:
 On Oct 24, Dmitrijs Ledkovs x...@debian.org wrote:
 
  What do you mean by holding hostile root. ?
 http://blog.bofh.it/debian/id_413
 
 The missing parts (UID virtualization IIRC) are upstream now, and should 
 be ready for jessie.
 
 Until then if you do not trust containers then the best choice is to
 use openvz with Parallel's 2.6.32 kernel.

Right, and wheezy userland should generally work with that kernel.
(It's not something that I've tested, though.)

Ben.

-- 
Ben Hutchings
Teamwork is essential - it allows you to blame someone else.


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: 
http://lists.debian.org/1382628266.21018.39.ca...@deadeye.wl.decadent.org.uk

Re: systemd effectively mandatory now due to GNOME

2013-10-24 Thread John Paul Adrian Glaubitz

On 10/24/2013 05:05 PM, Steve McIntyre wrote:
 Adrian wrote:

 Well, Debian is aiming for full systemd integration with Jessie, so
 there is that.
 
 Ummm, no. You and some others might be, but not Debian as a whole
 AFAICS.

Yes, I just read what the release team put in their announcement and
was repeating what one of the proposals were. I my intention was not
to say systemd is going to happen, deal with it., but rather that
there are plans. Just take it with a grain of salt ;).

As for gnome-settings-daemon, the systemd dependency does not seem
to put any harm to the non-Linux kernels. Both kfreebsd-* and
hurd-i386 have the latest version of gnome-settings-daemon in
the archives.

I haven't tested GNOME on kfreebsd-* for a long time now, but I
assume that the package works if it has been successfully built,
doesn't it?

Cheers,

Adrian

-- 
 .''`.  John Paul Adrian Glaubitz
: :' :  Debian Developer - glaub...@debian.org
`. `'   Freie Universitaet Berlin - glaub...@physik.fu-berlin.de
  `-GPG: 62FF 8A75 84E0 2956 9546  0006 7426 3B37 F5B5 F913


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/52693ccc.2090...@physik.fu-berlin.de

Re: systemd effectively mandatory now due to GNOME

2013-10-24 Thread Paul Tagliamonte

On Thu, Oct 24, 2013 at 05:29:16PM +0200, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote:
 Yes, I just read what the release team put in their announcement and
 was repeating what one of the proposals were.

/
| Proposed Release Goals
| ==
| 
| The call for release goals has finished and we have received the
| following proposals:
\

This doesn't mean Debian wishes to do this, just ${DEVELOPERS} wish to
do this. It's perhaps more correct to say the *systemd* maintainers (I
assume they proposed it, which I support, FWIW), wish to add support in
the archive.


From inside this asbestos suit,
  Paul

-- 
 .''`.  Paul Tagliamonte paul...@debian.org
: :'  : Proud Debian Developer
`. `'`  4096R / 8F04 9AD8 2C92 066C 7352  D28A 7B58 5B30 807C 2A87
 `- http://people.debian.org/~paultag


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: systemd effectively mandatory now due to GNOME

On Thu, 2013-10-24 at 16:05 +0100, Steve McIntyre wrote:
 Well, Debian is aiming for full systemd integration with Jessie, so
 there is that.
 
 Ummm, no. You and some others might be, but not Debian as a whole
 AFAICS.

I just wondered... when and how is this going to be decided? I mean,
whether systemd will become default or not.


I mean the current boot system has several issues which cannot be easily
solved there (what's most importantly for me is
https://wiki.debian.org/AdvancedStartupShutdownWithMultilayeredBlockDevices).
This is probably not only the fault of sysvinit but also the
initramfs-scripts/hooks of some packages,... and systemd doesn't fix all
these AFAIK, but I guess it would be easier there.



Anyway,... at some point some decision has probably to be made what
Debian will do (per default)... when and how?


Cheers,
Chris.


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: 
http://lists.debian.org/1382631614.6907.68.ca...@heisenberg.scientia.net

Re: OpenVZ (was: systemd effectively mandatory now due to GNOME)

On Thu, 2013-10-24 at 22:16 +0800, Thomas Goirand wrote:
 On 10/24/2013 06:46 PM, Ben Hutchings wrote:
  On Thu, 2013-10-24 at 11:59 +0200, Adam Borowski wrote:
  On Thu, Oct 24, 2013 at 09:11:30AM +0100, Jonathan Dowland wrote:
  On Thu, Oct 24, 2013 at 02:09:46AM +0200, Adam Borowski wrote:
   And I for one heavily use vservers
 
  It's a professional shame of mine that we are still trying to get rid of
  some old vserver instances at $WORK.
 
  lxc is still nowhere close to vserver (or openvz) functionality.
  [...]
  
  I'm not sure whether that's still true, but anyway: OpenVZ is in
  mainline Linux now.
 
 Oh, I'm surprised! I thought it would never get in, since we had LXC.

The mainline implementation of containers, which is made up of multiple
types of control groups and namespaces, supports both LXC and OpenVZ
(and Google's resource control, and systemd-nspawn, and yet other
tools).

 Thanks for sharing this info. How much of it is in? All of it? Or just a
 subset?

James Bottomley of Parallels talked about this in Edinburgh and said
everything was in by 3.9.

  You'll need to wait for Linux 3.12 in Debian, as we
  can't enable CONFIG_USER_NS before then
 
 What's that for?

User namespaces, i.e. user IDs and capabilities (the privileges that
root normally has) in a container are distinguished from those in the
outer system.  This is essential for virtual private servers.

Every filesystem implementation needs to make this distinction and not
all of them were converted to do so before 3.12.

Ben.

-- 
Ben Hutchings
Teamwork is essential - it allows you to blame someone else.


signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

Re: systemd effectively mandatory now due to GNOME

2013-10-24 Thread Serge Hallyn

Quoting Adam Borowski (kilob...@angband.pl):
 On Thu, Oct 24, 2013 at 09:11:30AM +0100, Jonathan Dowland wrote:
  On Thu, Oct 24, 2013 at 02:09:46AM +0200, Adam Borowski wrote:
And I for one heavily use vservers
  
  It's a professional shame of mine that we are still trying to get rid of
  some old vserver instances at $WORK.
 
 lxc is still nowhere close to vserver (or openvz) functionality.  It lacks
 even basics like vserver enter (you can't access a container more than
 once other than via ssh or similar),

lxc-attach does that and fully works with recent kernels.

 not to speak about holding hostile
 root.

3.12 has full user namespace support which gets us about as far as we'll
ever get.

-serge


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20131024164251.GA2226@ac100

Re: Please assume good faith (was Re: systemd effectively mandatory now due to GNOME)

On Thu, 2013-10-24 at 16:30 +0200, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
  Now, let me know - is this the new way of silencing critical voices?
 
 No.  But it is a gigantic leap forward in the culture of our community.

Well arguably, one shouldn't be too surprised if people get more and
more pissed off by GNOME _upstream_ .
They continuously try to push their agenda through and force their
blessings (most of the time broken, e.g. NM, GNOME Shell) on all users.

And since it seems to get more and more a system for the lowest end of
end-users, no longer usable by power-users (whatever that is),... and
since it causes quite often such troubles like this now with systemd...
people start even to think whether it should be removed from Debian. No
big surprise, I guess.


I know of my own tickets I've reported upstream and how outrageously
GNOME deals with some critical things...


Of course people should keep a respectful tone, though, and especially
correctly differentiate between GNOME upstream (causing all this mess)
and the Debian GNOME maintainers (usually having to live with it and
trying to make the best out of it).


Cheers,
Chris.


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: 
http://lists.debian.org/1382632414.6907.76.ca...@heisenberg.scientia.net

Re: Please assume good faith (was Re: systemd effectively mandatory now due to GNOME)

2013-10-24 Thread Steve Langasek

On Thu, Oct 24, 2013 at 11:00:42PM +0900, Norbert Preining wrote:
 On Do, 24 Okt 2013, Charles Plessy wrote:
  at this point, I would like to point at a very important part of the
  revised code of conduct that Wouter is proposing: Assume good faith.

 On Do, 24 Okt 2013, Adam Borowski wrote:
  My apologies, I overreacted.

 Oh holy s...sunshine (I have to be careful, otherwise I will be ostracised
 again) ... now that useless political correctness is taking
 over again.

 Clear critic with real background - many of us have the same experience -
 (how many times did my system break in the last years due to GNome?)
 are silence by
   Code of Conduct

 Now, let me know - is this the new way of silencing critical voices?

 This is what is happening in many policitcal and social landscape -
 say that it is not correct and put it under the carpet.

 Brave New World

Do you really have nothing better to contribute to this discussion than
complaining about people being civil to each other?

-- 
Steve Langasek   Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer   to set it on, and I can move the world.
Ubuntu Developerhttp://www.debian.org/
slanga...@ubuntu.com vor...@debian.org


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: systemd effectively mandatory now due to GNOME

2013-10-24 Thread Serge Hallyn

Quoting Brian May (br...@microcomaustralia.com.au):
 On 24 October 2013 11:09, Adam Borowski kilob...@angband.pl wrote:
 
  * it breaks other users of cgroups.  I have not tested this personally
  (mostly because of the above point), but if I understand it right, it takes
  over the whole cgroups system, requiring anything that runs on the same
  kernel instance to beg it via dbus to perform required actions.
 
 
 I have heard this said before, would like to have some official
 confirmation if this is actually the case or not. cgroups are currently
 hierarchical, I would have thought this would mean, at least in theory,
 different programs could be responsible for different parts of
 the hierarchy.

It currently can't prevent you from just mounting the cgroupfs and
working with it.  One of the justifications presented at plumbers for
wanting to do this was that changes to a subtree you control can
affect other tasks.  But it was agreed that that was actually only
for realtime (?) cgroup and that it is a bug which must be fixed.

In any case, google has released lmctfy
(https://github.com/google/lmctfy/) as an alternative cgroup manager
which is actually quite nice, and which does support delegation.  Based
on that I intend to implement a nestable manager.  By nestable I mean
that it will create a unix socket over which requests can be made.
So I can create a container and bind-mount that unix socket into the
container.  Then a container copy of the same cgroup manager, finding
it can't mount cgroups but the device socket exists, makes requests
over that socket.  If it is in cgroup /c1, and requests creation of
socket c2, the host's manager will create /c1/c2.  Since we have a
unix socket we can check the caller's credentials, it's access(2)
rights to the cgroups it wants to manage as well as the tasks it is
wanting to move.

(And if a container is created inside that container, it can bind-mount
the same socket, start another manager, and nesting should just work)

I've played enough to verify that all the pieces we need are there.  I
just haven't had the time to write it, and I need to decide whether/how
to base on / integrate with lmctfy.

[ And if anyone else wants to write this, please be my guest :)  I just
want nesting as described above ]

-serge


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20131024172511.GA21543@ac100

Re: systemd effectively mandatory now due to GNOME

2013-10-24 Thread Simon McVittie

On 24/10/13 16:29, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote:
 I haven't tested GNOME on kfreebsd-* for a long time now, but I
 assume that the package works if it has been successfully built,
 doesn't it?

I believe the effect of not having systemd-logind is that the features
for which GNOME uses systemd-logind won't work: most notably
suspend/resume (mostly in gnome-settings-daemon), fast user switching
(mostly in gdm3 and Shell), and the sort of login-session tracking that
is done by ConsoleKit in wheezy. I wouldn't be surprised if the Debian
GNOME maintainers consider those to be basic functionality, at least on
Linux.

S


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/52695b72.5030...@debian.org

Re: systemd effectively mandatory now due to GNOME

2013-10-24 Thread Steve Langasek

On Thu, Oct 24, 2013 at 12:25:12PM -0500, Serge Hallyn wrote:
 Quoting Brian May (br...@microcomaustralia.com.au):
  On 24 October 2013 11:09, Adam Borowski kilob...@angband.pl wrote:

   * it breaks other users of cgroups.  I have not tested this personally
   (mostly because of the above point), but if I understand it right, it 
   takes
   over the whole cgroups system, requiring anything that runs on the same
   kernel instance to beg it via dbus to perform required actions.

  I have heard this said before, would like to have some official
  confirmation if this is actually the case or not. cgroups are currently
  hierarchical, I would have thought this would mean, at least in theory,
  different programs could be responsible for different parts of
  the hierarchy.

 It currently can't prevent you from just mounting the cgroupfs and
 working with it.  One of the justifications presented at plumbers for
 wanting to do this was that changes to a subtree you control can
 affect other tasks.  But it was agreed that that was actually only
 for realtime (?) cgroup and that it is a bug which must be fixed.

The upshot being, AIUI, that there is a legitimate need for a single process
on each system to have a complete view of the cgroups heirarchy; even if
most users don't need a fine-grained policy manager, we should design with
this in mind.  On systems using systemd as init, the plan is for PID 1 to be
the process that has this overview, and that's fine; the problem is the
tight coupling of logind to systemd init for this, rather than using a
standard interface that can be implemented by multiple providers of a cgroup
manager service.

And this is not just an issue because of people not wanting to use systemd
init, but also because systemd init *can't* run in a container.  So if you
want any of the other users of cgroups (such as lxc) to coexist with
systemd, there needs to be a common protocol for this.

-- 
Steve Langasek   Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer   to set it on, and I can move the world.
Ubuntu Developerhttp://www.debian.org/
slanga...@ubuntu.com vor...@debian.org


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: systemd effectively mandatory now due to GNOME

2013-10-24 Thread Russ Allbery

Christoph Anton Mitterer cales...@scientia.net writes:

 Well I hope this doesn't turn into some kind of flame war... about
 systemd, GNOME or similar.

 In sid, gnome-settings-daemon depends now on systemd.

I'm missing a key bit of context here.  Does gnome-settings-daemon just
require that systemd be installed?  Or does it require that the init
system be systemd?

The systemd package itself can be installed without changing init systems,
so it's possible that gnome-settings-daemon just needs the non-init parts
of this and one can install systemd for those bits and then go on with
one's life without changing init systems.  However, I don't know if
systemd installed this way then starts its various non-init services.

This seems like a fairly critical question, since if all that is required
is for the systemd package to be installed (but without a change in the
init system), this is all a tempest in a teapot.

-- 
Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org)   http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/87fvrqfok8@windlord.stanford.edu

Re: Please assume good faith (was Re: systemd effectively mandatory now due to GNOME)

2013-10-24 Thread Olav Vitters

On Thu, Oct 24, 2013 at 06:33:34PM +0200, Christoph Anton Mitterer wrote:
 I know of my own tickets I've reported upstream and how outrageously
 GNOME deals with some critical things...

Could you give me a few bugnumbers and/or be more concrete what you mean
with outrageously? Do you mean someone did not do exactly what you
want, or that they were really outrageous as defined by
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/outrageously? In case the latter,
please give me some bugnumbers.

Note: If you did not mean outrageous, please do not use that word.

-- 
Regards,
Olav


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20131024194208.gb29...@bkor.dhs.org

Re: Please assume good faith (was Re: systemd effectively mandatory now due to GNOME)

On Thu, 2013-10-24 at 21:42 +0200, Olav Vitters wrote:
 Could you give me a few bugnumbers and/or be more concrete what you mean
 with outrageously?
Yeah I could, but this already turned far too much into a flame war.
There's e.g. the bug that Evolution silently corrupts eMails, which is
known now for years upstream, who even try to actively hide that fact
away.
The same for SSL/TLS which is completely useless in Epiphany,.. again
known for a long time.
I'd call such cases even intentional malicious behaviour against user.

I'm sure you can easily find the related bugs, but please keep them away
from here, since the flames do not need even more coals to burn higher.


  Do you mean someone did not do exactly what you
 want, or that they were really outrageous as defined by
 http://www.thefreedictionary.com/outrageously? In case the latter,
 please give me some bugnumbers.
 
 Note: If you did not mean outrageous, please do not use that word.
I guess I need no teaching from you what some words mean or how I use
them :)


Cheers,
Chris.


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: 
http://lists.debian.org/1382645273.6907.90.ca...@heisenberg.scientia.net

Re: Please assume good faith (was Re: systemd effectively mandatory now due to GNOME)

2013-10-24 Thread Olav Vitters

On Thu, Oct 24, 2013 at 10:07:53PM +0200, Christoph Anton Mitterer wrote:
 I'd call such cases even intentional malicious behaviour against user.
 
 I'm sure you can easily find the related bugs, but please keep them away
 from here, since the flames do not need even more coals to burn higher.

Those two sentences are conflicting. Either be nice, or don't suggest
you are.

-- 
Regards,
Olav


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20131024203726.gd29...@bkor.dhs.org

Re: Please assume good faith (was Re: systemd effectively mandatory now due to GNOME)

This seems a little bit of a distraction from the issue at hand (Debian
Development) — perhaps you and the OP could follow up off list?


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20131024205058.ga13...@bryant.redmars.org

Re: Please assume good faith (was Re: systemd effectively mandatory now due to GNOME)

On Thu, 2013-10-24 at 22:37 +0200, Olav Vitters wrote:
 On Thu, Oct 24, 2013 at 10:07:53PM +0200, Christoph Anton Mitterer wrote:
  I'd call such cases even intentional malicious behaviour against user.
  
  I'm sure you can easily find the related bugs, but please keep them away
  from here, since the flames do not need even more coals to burn higher.
 Those two sentences are conflicting. Either be nice, or don't suggest
 you are.

I don't see what you mean? I said one should be respectful and polite,
but this doesn't mean one has to conceal the truth, does it?

If I would have called GNOME upstream assh*** or anything similar
(which I did not and which is not my intention),... then I'd be
impolite.
But stating that IMHO a lot goes wrong in which ways GNOME has chosen
and that there are also critical issues that go beyond things like One
doesn't like GNOME Shell or whatsoever... has nothing to do with being
nice or not.


Cheers,
Chris.


smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature

Re: systemd effectively mandatory now due to GNOME

2013-10-24 Thread Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek

On Thu, Oct 24, 2013 at 12:13:34PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
 And this is not just an issue because of people not wanting to use systemd
 init, but also because systemd init *can't* run in a container.
Whoah, that's not true:

sudo systemd-nspawn -bD ~/images/fedora-19

works just fine :)

Zbyszek


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20131024202910.gl28...@in.waw.pl

Re: let's split the systemd binary package [Was, Re: systemd effectively mandatory now due to GNOME]

2013-10-24 Thread Roger Lynn

On 24/10/13 03:00, Steve Langasek wrote:
 On Thu, Oct 24, 2013 at 02:21:25AM +0200, Matthias Klumpp wrote:
 2013/10/24 Steve Langasek vor...@debian.org:
  Well, that's one more reason the init system and the dbus services should 
  be
  separated out in the packaging.
 Some of the services consume functions and features provided by
 systemd (the init system).
 
 Which is exactly the kind of embrace-and-extend that Debian should not
 tolerate having foisted on them in the default desktop by an upstream
 pushing an agenda.

How often is the choice of default desktop re-evaluated, and how is this done?

Roger


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/kogoja-272@silverstone.rilynn.me.uk

Re: Please assume good faith (was Re: systemd effectively mandatory now due to GNOME)

2013-10-24 Thread Brian May

On 25 October 2013 03:33, Christoph Anton Mitterer cales...@scientia.netwrote:

 Well arguably, one shouldn't be too surprised if people get more and
 more pissed off by GNOME _upstream_ .
 They continuously try to push their agenda through and force their
 blessings (most of the time broken, e.g. NM, GNOME Shell) on all users.


If you don't like Gnome, nobody is forcing you to use it.

There are alternatives. e.g. KDE. I use Awesome myself.

Trying to say [GNOME upstream] continuously try to [...] force their
blessings on all users. is just wrong. Nobody is forced to use Gnome.
-- 
Brian May br...@microcomaustralia.com.au

Re: systemd effectively mandatory now due to GNOME

2013-10-24 Thread Mark Symonds


No, no, no… drop GNOME.  

Useless anyway.  

-- 
Mark  


On Oct 23, 2013, at 1:30 PM, Christoph Anton Mitterer cales...@scientia.net 
wrote:

 Hi.
 
 Well I hope this doesn't turn into some kind of flame war... about
 systemd, GNOME or similar.
 
 
 In sid, gnome-settings-daemon depends now on systemd.
 
 I wouldn't have any issues with that, but at least right now systemd is
 for me not yet production ready (it seems to miss proper dm-crypt
 integration - or at least all those use cases where dm-crypt makes sense
 at all).
 
 Of course I can install the package but don't have to switch init= to
 it, nevertheless it seems that already this alone adds several things
 (udev rules, dbus stuff and some things in the maintainer scripts) that
 *will* get enabled.
 
 I've opened #726675, asking the GNOME developers what they think about
 this, but the only answer so far is basically GNOME now depends on
 systemd.
 I personally think this is a design problem of GNOME upstream and we
 have previously seen that GNOME upstream forces their blessings upon
 their users - anyway... probably not something we can change from Debian
 side.
 
 
 So I guess the question is mainly,... what's the policy from Debian side
 now with such cases?
 And does anyone know whether it causes hurt to just install the
 package without using it?
 
 
 Thanks,
 Chris.



signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail

Re: Please assume good faith (was Re: systemd effectively mandatory now due to GNOME)



On Fri, 2013-10-25 at 09:39 +1100, Brian May wrote:
 If you don't like Gnome, nobody is forcing you to use it.
Well actually it's not that easy to avoid all of it, at least you get
some libraries even when using 3rd party GTK/GNOME apps.


 Trying to say [GNOME upstream] continuously try to [...] force their
 blessings on all users. is just wrong. Nobody is forced to use Gnome.
Sorry, I've implicitly meant all _of their_ users. My apologies.


Cheers,
Chris.


smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature

Re: systemd effectively mandatory now due to GNOME

On Thu, 2013-10-24 at 15:41 -0700, Mark Symonds wrote:
 No, no, no… drop GNOME.  
 
 Useless anyway.  

You really think such comments will help anyone or actually lead to
dropping it? o.O



smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature

Re: systemd effectively mandatory now due to GNOME

2013-10-24 Thread Brian May

On 25 October 2013 06:37, Russ Allbery r...@debian.org wrote:

 I'm missing a key bit of context here.  Does gnome-settings-daemon just
 require that systemd be installed?  Or does it require that the init
 system be systemd?


Me too. Am getting rather lost as to why gnome-settings-daemon depends
on systemd.

Can somebody please confirm my understanding:

* Gnome upstream in no way requires systemd. I would assume it can take
advantage of it.If no systemd you loose support for some features.

* In Debian, the latest Gnome packages requires gnome-settings-daemon,
which does require systemd. However systemd doesn't actually need to be
running as initd.

* The gnome-settings-daemon package due to {build options, runtime options,
Jedi council decision} requires a/an {systemd shared libary, systemd binary
executable, systemd dbus implementation, chocolate biscuit, coffee} and if
not available at run time then {you loose support for extra features, gnome
breaks, life on the planet will cease to exist}. (*cross out incorrect
options)

* Ubuntu has a patch to fix the above, however it is is prone to break with
new versions of systemd (???) and nobody has volunteered to continue to
support it.

* The Debian packages of Gnome currently will not install on non-Linux
systems.

* Discussion starts on debian-devel mailing list with lots of pointing of
fingers.

* I blame Tux. Tuz said so.
-- 
Brian May br...@microcomaustralia.com.au

Re: systemd effectively mandatory now due to GNOME

2013-10-24 Thread Brian May

On 25 October 2013 10:54, Brian May br...@microcomaustralia.com.au wrote:

 * The Debian packages of Gnome currently will not install on non-Linux
 systems.


Seems I was mislead. On hurd and kfreebsd,  gnome-settings-daemon does not
depend on systemd.

http://sources.debian.net/src/gnome-settings-daemon/3.8.5-2/debian/control#L58

So that concern is non-existent.
-- 
Brian May br...@microcomaustralia.com.au

Re: systemd effectively mandatory now due to GNOME

On Thu, 2013-10-24 at 15:41 -0700, Mark Symonds wrote:
 No, no, no… drop GNOME.  
 
 Useless anyway.  

1. Don't top-post.
2. Assume good faith.
3. This list is for discussion of Debian development, not for random
opinions.

Ben.

-- 
Ben Hutchings
Teamwork is essential - it allows you to blame someone else.


signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

Re: systemd effectively mandatory now due to GNOME

2013-10-24 Thread Uoti Urpala

Russ Allbery wrote:
 Christoph Anton Mitterer cales...@scientia.net writes:
  In sid, gnome-settings-daemon depends now on systemd.
 
 I'm missing a key bit of context here.  Does gnome-settings-daemon just
 require that systemd be installed?  Or does it require that the init
 system be systemd?
 
 The systemd package itself can be installed without changing init systems,
 so it's possible that gnome-settings-daemon just needs the non-init parts
 of this and one can install systemd for those bits and then go on with
 one's life without changing init systems.  However, I don't know if
 systemd installed this way then starts its various non-init services.
 
 This seems like a fairly critical question, since if all that is required
 is for the systemd package to be installed (but without a change in the
 init system), this is all a tempest in a teapot.

There are multiple distinct APIs GNOME needs. Things like power
management may not work without systemd as init, but I'm not really
sure. However, the most important part is logind. It probably mostly
works without systemd as init with the current v204 systemd packages,
but once the package is updated to a newer version it WILL NOT work
without systemd as init due to cgroup management changes. And as
discussed elsewhere in this thread, it does not appear realistic to keep
it working. If someone wants to create a logind for systems not using
systemd as init, that would need to be a separate package (maintained by
people other than the systemd maintainers), perhaps created by forking
logind from old systemd versions.

GNOME can run without logind. However, some parts that are considered
core functionality will not work.

This page has some information about the dependency situation (perhaps
someone could give a better one now, I haven't really followed GNOME):
http://blogs.gnome.org/ovitters/2013/09/25/gnome-and-logindsystemd-thoughts/



-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: 
http://lists.debian.org/1382660824.1856.62.camel@glyph.nonexistent.invalid

Re: systemd effectively mandatory now due to GNOME

2013-10-24 Thread Mark - Syminet


To not be provided with a choice is utterly *horrible*.  

from_userspace  

There is init, upstart and sytemd; the linux boot manager
(GRUB) is a JOKE; see extlinux - use what the kernel devsuse.  
Perhaps we should appeal to the BSD community.  
:wq
:q
```:q
One can't help but wonder if we've finally got enough 
attention to be attacked. 

-- 
Mark 

Syminet Internetworking Solutions 
http://www.syminet.com/ 
1-866-664-3151 ext. 8049
GPG Key: https://www.syminet.com/mark


On Wed, Oct 23, 2013 at 10:30:41PM +0200, Christoph Anton Mitterer wrote:
 Hi.
 
 Well I hope this doesn't turn into some kind of flame war... about
 systemd, GNOME or similar.
 
 
 In sid, gnome-settings-daemon depends now on systemd.
 
 I wouldn't have any issues with that, but at least right now systemd is
 for me not yet production ready (it seems to miss proper dm-crypt
 integration - or at least all those use cases where dm-crypt makes sense
 at all).
 
 Of course I can install the package but don't have to switch init= to
 it, nevertheless it seems that already this alone adds several things
 (udev rules, dbus stuff and some things in the maintainer scripts) that
 *will* get enabled.
 
 I've opened #726675, asking the GNOME developers what they think about
 this, but the only answer so far is basically GNOME now depends on
 systemd.
 I personally think this is a design problem of GNOME upstream and we
 have previously seen that GNOME upstream forces their blessings upon
 their users - anyway... probably not something we can change from Debian
 side.
 
 
 So I guess the question is mainly,... what's the policy from Debian side
 now with such cases?
 And does anyone know whether it causes hurt to just install the
 package without using it?
 
 
 Thanks,
 Chris.



-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20131025011834.GA8262@debian

Re: Please assume good faith (was Re: systemd effectively mandatory now due to GNOME)

2013-10-24 Thread Jean-Christophe Dubacq

Le 25/10/2013 00:39, Brian May a écrit :
 On 25 October 2013 03:33, Christoph Anton Mitterer
 cales...@scientia.net mailto:cales...@scientia.net wrote:
 
 Well arguably, one shouldn't be too surprised if people get more and
 more pissed off by GNOME _upstream_ .
 They continuously try to push their agenda through and force their
 blessings (most of the time broken, e.g. NM, GNOME Shell) on all users.
 
 
 If you don't like Gnome, nobody is forcing you to use it.
 
 There are alternatives. e.g. KDE. I use Awesome myself.
 
 Trying to say [GNOME upstream] continuously try to [...] force their
 blessings on all users. is just wrong. Nobody is forced to use Gnome.

I agree with you.

As an other datapoint, I use the latest gnome and I am quite happy with
it. I also use systemd on my laptop and I am quite happy with it. If I
were unhappy, I would have switched to something else.

Sincerely,
-- 
Jean-Christophe Dubacq



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

systemd effectively mandatory now due to GNOME

2013-10-23 Thread Christoph Anton Mitterer

Hi.

Well I hope this doesn't turn into some kind of flame war... about
systemd, GNOME or similar.


In sid, gnome-settings-daemon depends now on systemd.

I wouldn't have any issues with that, but at least right now systemd is
for me not yet production ready (it seems to miss proper dm-crypt
integration - or at least all those use cases where dm-crypt makes sense
at all).

Of course I can install the package but don't have to switch init= to
it, nevertheless it seems that already this alone adds several things
(udev rules, dbus stuff and some things in the maintainer scripts) that
*will* get enabled.

I've opened #726675, asking the GNOME developers what they think about
this, but the only answer so far is basically GNOME now depends on
systemd.
I personally think this is a design problem of GNOME upstream and we
have previously seen that GNOME upstream forces their blessings upon
their users - anyway... probably not something we can change from Debian
side.


So I guess the question is mainly,... what's the policy from Debian side
now with such cases?
And does anyone know whether it causes hurt to just install the
package without using it?


Thanks,
Chris.


smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature

Re: systemd effectively mandatory now due to GNOME

2013-10-23 Thread John Paul Adrian Glaubitz

On 10/23/2013 10:30 PM, Christoph Anton Mitterer wrote:
 Well I hope this doesn't turn into some kind of flame war... about
 systemd, GNOME or similar.

I don't hope either, I'm tired of these.

 I wouldn't have any issues with that, but at least right now systemd is
 for me not yet production ready (it seems to miss proper dm-crypt
 integration - or at least all those use cases where dm-crypt makes sense
 at all).
 
 Of course I can install the package but don't have to switch init= to
 it, nevertheless it seems that already this alone adds several things
 (udev rules, dbus stuff and some things in the maintainer scripts) that
 *will* get enabled.

And does this cause any problems actually? Does your system no longer
boot properly using sysvinit when systemd is installed?

I don't exactly understand the problem so far.

 I've opened #726675, asking the GNOME developers what they think about
 this, but the only answer so far is basically GNOME now depends on
 systemd.

I think you should rather file this to GNOME upstream. We, as Debian,
aren't really in the position to change that, are we?

 I personally think this is a design problem of GNOME upstream and we
 have previously seen that GNOME upstream forces their blessings upon
 their users - anyway... probably not something we can change from Debian
 side.

See. Therefore, please report this to bugzilla.gnome.org.

 So I guess the question is mainly,... what's the policy from Debian side
 now with such cases?

Well, Debian is aiming for full systemd integration with Jessie, so
there is that.

 And does anyone know whether it causes hurt to just install the
 package without using it?

Uh, didn't you indirectly state above that it does? I thought you
actually have seen some problems with systemd being installed without
using it.

Cheers,

Adrian

-- 
 .''`.  John Paul Adrian Glaubitz
: :' :  Debian Developer - glaub...@debian.org
`. `'   Freie Universitaet Berlin - glaub...@physik.fu-berlin.de
  `-GPG: 62FF 8A75 84E0 2956 9546  0006 7426 3B37 F5B5 F913


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/52683a5f.3090...@physik.fu-berlin.de

Re: systemd effectively mandatory now due to GNOME

2013-10-23 Thread Svante Signell

On Wed, 2013-10-23 at 23:06 +0200, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote:
 On 10/23/2013 10:30 PM, Christoph Anton Mitterer wrote:
  Well I hope this doesn't turn into some kind of flame war... about
  systemd, GNOME or similar.
 
 I don't hope either, I'm tired of these.
 
  I wouldn't have any issues with that, but at least right now systemd is
  for me not yet production ready (it seems to miss proper dm-crypt
  integration - or at least all those use cases where dm-crypt makes sense
  at all).
  
  Of course I can install the package but don't have to switch init= to
  it, nevertheless it seems that already this alone adds several things
  (udev rules, dbus stuff and some things in the maintainer scripts) that
  *will* get enabled.
 
 And does this cause any problems actually? Does your system no longer
 boot properly using sysvinit when systemd is installed?

Well, gdm3 does not start for a new installation, probably caused by
systemd(-logind). I had to use xfce4 instead as desktop for now, see
also bug: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=724731


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/1382564561.21791.40.ca...@g3620.my.own.domain

Re: systemd effectively mandatory now due to GNOME

On Wed, Oct 23, 2013 at 11:06:39PM +0200, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote:
 On 10/23/2013 10:30 PM, Christoph Anton Mitterer wrote:

  I wouldn't have any issues with that, but at least right now systemd is
  for me not yet production ready (it seems to miss proper dm-crypt
  integration - or at least all those use cases where dm-crypt makes sense
  at all).

  Of course I can install the package but don't have to switch init= to
  it, nevertheless it seems that already this alone adds several things
  (udev rules, dbus stuff and some things in the maintainer scripts) that
  *will* get enabled.

 And does this cause any problems actually? Does your system no longer
 boot properly using sysvinit when systemd is installed?

 I don't exactly understand the problem so far.

The problem is the scope creep.  It's perfectly fine for
gnome-settings-daemon to depend on the dbus services provided by systemd;
but there needs to be a very clear separation between the dbus services and
the init system, and the systemd package should be maintained with this in
mind.

You should not get an init system installed when you install the dbus
services.  This is deliberate embrace-and-extend on the part of systemd
upstream, and Debian should not tolerate it.

The Ubuntu packages may provide a useful template for how this package
should be divided - with systemd-services providing logind, hostnamed,
timedated, localed, separate from the init system components.  A clear
separation will help avoid any accidental dependencies on systemd-as-init
from the systemd services.

  So I guess the question is mainly,... what's the policy from Debian side
  now with such cases?

 Well, Debian is aiming for full systemd integration with Jessie, so
 there is that.

No, please reread that mail from the release team.  It is a *proposal* from
the systemd maintainers to implement full systemd support.  The release team
have not said that they have endorsed this as a release goal (and frankly, I
don't expect them to do so; it's not the release team's place to decide what
Debian should use as its default init system, and to endorse such a release
goal would presuppose such a decision).

So the systemd maintainers are aiming, not Debian is aiming.

-- 
Steve Langasek   Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer   to set it on, and I can move the world.
Ubuntu Developerhttp://www.debian.org/
slanga...@ubuntu.com vor...@debian.org


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: systemd effectively mandatory now due to GNOME

2013-10-23 Thread Brian May

On 24 October 2013 08:39, Steve Langasek vor...@debian.org wrote:

 No, please reread that mail from the release team.  It is a *proposal* from
 the systemd maintainers to implement full systemd support.  The release
 team
 have not said that they have endorsed this as a release goal (and frankly,
 I
 don't expect them to do so; it's not the release team's place to decide
 what
 Debian should use as its default init system, and to endorse such a release
 goal would presuppose such a decision).


By my reading of the proposal, it doesn't change the default init system.
It only proposes to ship systemd service file with every package that ships
an init.d script, so if you don't want to change you don't have to. The
release time can endorse this proposal and not make any decision on the
default init system.

If Gnome depends on gnome-settings-daemon, which now depends on systemd,
this might be a worrying trend, as non-Linux kernels don't support systemd.
-- 
Brian May br...@microcomaustralia.com.au

Re: systemd effectively mandatory now due to GNOME

On Thu, Oct 24, 2013 at 09:47:52AM +1100, Brian May wrote:
 On 24 October 2013 08:39, Steve Langasek vor...@debian.org wrote:

  No, please reread that mail from the release team.  It is a *proposal*
  from the systemd maintainers to implement full systemd support.  The
  release team have not said that they have endorsed this as a release
  goal (and frankly, I don't expect them to do so; it's not the release
  team's place to decide what Debian should use as its default init
  system, and to endorse such a release goal would presuppose such a
  decision).

 By my reading of the proposal, it doesn't change the default init system.
 It only proposes to ship systemd service file with every package that ships
 an init.d script, so if you don't want to change you don't have to. The
 release time can endorse this proposal and not make any decision on the
 default init system.

Yes, but the release team should not be giving some developer carte blanche
to upload such changes as NMUs to all service-providing packages in the
archive if it's not going to be our default init system.

 If Gnome depends on gnome-settings-daemon, which now depends on systemd,
 this might be a worrying trend, as non-Linux kernels don't support systemd.

Well, that's one more reason the init system and the dbus services should be
separated out in the packaging.

-- 
Steve Langasek   Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer   to set it on, and I can move the world.
Ubuntu Developerhttp://www.debian.org/
slanga...@ubuntu.com vor...@debian.org


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: systemd effectively mandatory now due to GNOME

2013-10-23 Thread Adam Borowski

On Wed, Oct 23, 2013 at 02:39:15PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
 The problem is the scope creep.  It's perfectly fine for
 gnome-settings-daemon to depend on the dbus services provided by systemd;

No, not even that, as long as xfce4[1] and other non-GNOME environments
require gnome-settings-daemon.  A bunch of us ran away from GNOME for a
reason (ok, plenty of reasons).

A daemon to hold *settings* for an user interface must not force a whole
init system.  This lies squarely in the breaks unrelated software land
(as long as systemd does break a single thing, and with its scope it does
break far more than one).

 You should not get an init system installed when you install the dbus
 services.  This is deliberate embrace-and-extend on the part of systemd
 upstream, and Debian should not tolerate it.

Also, GNOME does _not_ absolutely need systemd.  Proof: Ubuntu.  This part
of its packaging in Debian strikes me as being intentionally malicious to
push an agenda.  And this is not the first time, we had this with Network
Manager already.

  Well, Debian is aiming for full systemd integration with Jessie, so
  there is that.
 
 No, please reread that mail from the release team.  It is a *proposal* from
 the systemd maintainers to implement full systemd support.  The release team
 have not said that they have endorsed this as a release goal (and frankly, I
 don't expect them to do so; it's not the release team's place to decide what
 Debian should use as its default init system, and to endorse such a release
 goal would presuppose such a decision).

There are quite a few reasons to avoid systemd like the plague it is.  It's
not the place to repeat those (just recall the most epic flamewar in
Debian's history), so here are just two additional reasons I learned in the
past ~2 months:

* it is buggy.  I did install a straightforward install of experimental
GNOME to test if it improved even a bit, running systemd as init, and, with
2G RAM assigned to the machine, I got an OOM from one of systemd's
components.  Excuse me for not looking more closely but purging the machine
and running away screaming: even in early stages of integration, an init
system which even *can* possibly OOM is not fit for any non-toy use.

* it breaks other users of cgroups.  I have not tested this personally
(mostly because of the above point), but if I understand it right, it takes
over the whole cgroups system, requiring anything that runs on the same
kernel instance to beg it via dbus to perform required actions.  This might
be possible to organize on a single system, but not really between multiple
systems on the same kernel.  Even if you run massive Rube Goldberg tricks
(akin to those once needed for dbus inside a chroot), this is still doable
only if you run the same version both in host and guests.  And I for one
heavily use vservers, which are supposed to be replaced with lxc.  Not being
able to run an arbitrary, possibly old[2], distribution in a guest -- or even
being able to move a live system into a container, without replacing its
init system, means it's a no-no for me.


[1]. Fortunately not for its core functionality.

[2]. It took me a lot of nudging to get the last person to finally upgrade a
lenny system long after it lost security support.

-- 
ᛊᚨᚾᛁᛏᚣ᛫ᛁᛊ᛫ᚠᛟᚱ᛫ᚦᛖ᛫ᚹᛖᚨᚲ


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20131024000946.ga26...@angband.pl

Re: systemd effectively mandatory now due to GNOME

2013-10-23 Thread Matthias Klumpp

2013/10/24 Steve Langasek vor...@debian.org:
 [...]
 If Gnome depends on gnome-settings-daemon, which now depends on systemd,
 this might be a worrying trend, as non-Linux kernels don't support systemd.

 Well, that's one more reason the init system and the dbus services should be
 separated out in the packaging.
Some of the services consume functions and features provided by
systemd (the init system). So splitting it out is not an easy task.
Ubuntu manages to do that by heavily patching systemd and their own
upstart to support a systemd-less system. (of course, there is stuff
which does not need systemd[1].
Cheers,
Matthias

[1]: 
http://www.freedesktop.org/wiki/Software/systemd/InterfacePortabilityAndStabilityChart/

-- 
I welcome VSRE emails. See http://vsre.info/


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: 
http://lists.debian.org/CAKNHny_3SbPqaJ37SWiP2y4kSj08==js9oyPMnzfN6sXO3=r...@mail.gmail.com

Re: systemd effectively mandatory now due to GNOME

2013-10-23 Thread Brian May

On 24 October 2013 11:09, Adam Borowski kilob...@angband.pl wrote:

 * it breaks other users of cgroups.  I have not tested this personally
 (mostly because of the above point), but if I understand it right, it takes
 over the whole cgroups system, requiring anything that runs on the same
 kernel instance to beg it via dbus to perform required actions.


I have heard this said before, would like to have some official
confirmation if this is actually the case or not. cgroups are currently
hierarchical, I would have thought this would mean, at least in theory,
different programs could be responsible for different parts of
the hierarchy.

If it is true, it is the thing we need to be prepared for, and so far I
haven't seen any official information.

This might also be relevant here:
http://www.linux.com/news/featured-blogs/200-libby-clark/733595-all-about-the-linux-kernel-cgroups-redesign
-- 
Brian May br...@microcomaustralia.com.au

Re: systemd effectively mandatory now due to GNOME

2013-10-23 Thread Uoti Urpala

Steve Langasek wrote:
 On Thu, Oct 24, 2013 at 09:47:52AM +1100, Brian May wrote:
  If Gnome depends on gnome-settings-daemon, which now depends on systemd,
  this might be a worrying trend, as non-Linux kernels don't support systemd.
 
 Well, that's one more reason the init system and the dbus services should be
 separated out in the packaging.

Current logind (in systemd v205+) depends on systemd instead of
implementing its own cgroup handling. Thus, if you want to implement the
logind API for non-systemd machines, you will need to create and
maintain a separate program for that - either create a fork based on the
standalone logind code from old systemd or write a new program. Or
alternatively implement all the systemd APIs required by current logind
in your own init or its helper processes.



-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: 
http://lists.debian.org/1382576184.1856.8.camel@glyph.nonexistent.invalid

Please assume good faith (was Re: systemd effectively mandatory now due to GNOME)

2013-10-23 Thread Charles Plessy

Le Thu, Oct 24, 2013 at 02:09:46AM +0200, Adam Borowski a écrit :
 
 Also, GNOME does _not_ absolutely need systemd.  Proof: Ubuntu.  This part
 of its packaging in Debian strikes me as being intentionally malicious to
 push an agenda.  And this is not the first time, we had this with Network
 Manager already.

Hi Adam,

at this point, I would like to point at a very important part of the
revised code of conduct that Wouter is proposing: Assume good faith.

http://lists.debian.org/debian-project/2013/05/msg00084.html

I use GNOME, I like it a lot, and would be extremely disapointed if in the
future I can not have it anymore because regular fingerpointing and accusation
would be driving out people who undertake a such a heavy task as maintaining a
destkop environment.

Cheers,

-- 
Charles Plessy
Tsurumi, Kanagawa, Japan


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20131024012552.ga29...@falafel.plessy.net

let's split the systemd binary package [Was, Re: systemd effectively mandatory now due to GNOME]

On Thu, Oct 24, 2013 at 02:21:25AM +0200, Matthias Klumpp wrote:
2013/10/24 Steve Langasek vor...@debian.org:
[...]
If Gnome depends on gnome-settings-daemon, which now depends on systemd,
this might be a worrying trend, as non-Linux kernels don't support systemd.

Well, that's one more reason the init system and the dbus services should be
separated out in the packaging.
Some of the services consume functions and features provided by
systemd (the init system).

Which is exactly the kind of embrace-and-extend that Debian should not
tolerate having foisted on them in the default desktop by an upstream
pushing an agenda.

So splitting it out is not an easy task. Ubuntu manages to do that by
heavily patching systemd and their own upstart to support a systemd-less
system.

So first of all, how hard it is to split is irrelevant. This is work that
must be done, and Debian should not accept excuses for it not being done.

Second, there's nothing hard at all about applying these patches that have
already been written and are being used in Ubuntu. Indeed, AFAICS there's
only one patch to the upstream code currently missing from the Debian
package:

http://bazaar.launchpad.net/~ubuntu-branches/ubuntu/trusty/systemd/trusty/view/head:/debian/patches/0025-login-monitor-no-machine.patch

This is a trivially small change to maintain. And the Debian package
already includes a number of other fixes to enable running the dbus services
without systemd init.

All the rest is just packaging, which the Ubuntu packages again provide a
working model for.

--
Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world.
Ubuntu Developerhttp://www.debian.org/
slanga...@ubuntu.com vor...@debian.org

signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: Please assume good faith (was Re: systemd effectively mandatory now due to GNOME)

2013-10-23 Thread Adam Borowski

On Thu, Oct 24, 2013 at 10:25:52AM +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:
 Le Thu, Oct 24, 2013 at 02:09:46AM +0200, Adam Borowski a écrit :
  
  Also, GNOME does _not_ absolutely need systemd.  Proof: Ubuntu.  This part
  of its packaging in Debian strikes me as being intentionally malicious to
  push an agenda.  And this is not the first time, we had this with Network
  Manager already.
 
 at this point, I would like to point at a very important part of the
 revised code of conduct that Wouter is proposing: Assume good faith.
 
 http://lists.debian.org/debian-project/2013/05/msg00084.html

My apologies, I overreacted.

I'm fed up with repeated attempts to force components on the rest of the
system, but that's mostly a fault of Gnome's upstream, who are not even
malicious themselves but merely don't care about portability to other
systems.  They don't get paid for making it work on Debian nor *BSD.

The way both Network Manager (twice) and now systemd are pushed in the
Debian packaging does leave a bad taste, but I should have limited
my (harsh already) words to merely pushing an agenda.  The word
malicious was really uncalled for.

Deep apologies.

-- 
ᛊᚨᚾᛁᛏᚣ᛫ᛁᛊ᛫ᚠᛟᚱ᛫ᚦᛖ᛫ᚹᛖᚨᚲ


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20131024020300.gb30...@angband.pl

Re: let's split the systemd binary package [Was, Re: systemd effectively mandatory now due to GNOME]

2013-10-23 Thread Uoti Urpala

Steve Langasek wrote:
 On Thu, Oct 24, 2013 at 02:21:25AM +0200, Matthias Klumpp wrote:
  2013/10/24 Steve Langasek vor...@debian.org:
   [...]
   If Gnome depends on gnome-settings-daemon, which now depends on systemd,
   this might be a worrying trend, as non-Linux kernels don't support 
   systemd.
 
   Well, that's one more reason the init system and the dbus services should 
   be
   separated out in the packaging.
  Some of the services consume functions and features provided by
  systemd (the init system).
 
 Which is exactly the kind of embrace-and-extend that Debian should not
 tolerate having foisted on them in the default desktop by an upstream
 pushing an agenda.

I think the agenda here is mostly make things work, and it's less
embrace-and-extend than create new things. If Debian shouldn't
tolerate that, then what's the alternative? Tell upstream that nothing
must change? Or that it's their responsibility to implement everything
new at least twice, with another version for Upstart just so that Ubuntu
doesn't need to admit making a mistake with that and deal with a
transition to a better system?


  So splitting it out is not an easy task. Ubuntu manages to do that by
  heavily patching systemd and their own upstart to support a systemd-less
  system.
 
 So first of all, how hard it is to split is irrelevant.  This is work that
 must be done, and Debian should not accept excuses for it not being done.
 
 Second, there's nothing hard at all about applying these patches that have
 already been written and are being used in Ubuntu.  Indeed, AFAICS there's
 only one patch to the upstream code currently missing from the Debian
 package:

As I already said in my previous mail, this is not at all true for
systemd v205+. I think you'd basically need a completely separate logind
package for non-systemd systems.

And if you think this is work that must be done, then it is YOUR
responsibility to do it. It's not the systemd maintainers'
responsibility to implement new functionality for non-systemd systems.
If you want to keep using another init system, then it's your
responsibility to do every part of the work required to ensure needed
interfaces are available on such systems. Systemd maintainers should
only need to ensure that things work well with systemd and there is a
reasonable update path to it.



-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: 
http://lists.debian.org/1382582733.1856.23.camel@glyph.nonexistent.invalid

Re: systemd effectively mandatory now due to GNOME